we took our bank close to zero. so when he do that, there's a lot of writing on performing well. week after week was a mess when status. from a budget standpoint, there is a lot of decision-making that i had to do when you start to think about this staff you might actually come. and they are human beings and it's brutal. i say that was the most brutal

part. >> this is the michigan, ohio. >> south carolina was great. >> the nights that we last colorado, minnesota and this very because there was like another month of this, really? i didn't feel like we were going to lose. i had fun in south carolina -- not fun, but we could come back in florida and had a bomb ball and do great. the three states last that night. >> stewart. >> michigan was really tough fight that because losing michigan would not have been a positive experience.

we went into it 10 down and a very expensive state as a symbolic coast. it was hand-to-hand. and we didn't win it by a landslide, but we won it. >> a wrap up the nomination. in april 2012 -- when suddenly -- did it surprise you how fast they rallied around him like every week we were keeping ourselves a week. >> now, i mean, we are such a partisan country that we never

thought after this thing, you know, the non-romney primary electorate is not going to galvanize. there is this narrow band is going to decide this thing. there is never any doubt the party would consolidate quickly. >> was the plan always about a week or two due to the formal rollout? was that sort of in march? u.k. started in april? >> we know exactly where we were going to go by the end of the year and we had a contingency plan. our biggest moment in the primary was the one that a long primary. they know exactly what we are going to do and when we were going to do it. >> this is a good moment.

[laughter] >> we had all built around that. >> who is also tied in with the media. we had to reeser says to hit all at once. >> it's been my understanding that you guys assume that the moment the nomination would start the next day. >> the big surprise to us was our greatest fear the super pac adds that the really unprepared. and to this day, i am confused as to why that didn't happen. if i am running a pact not affiliated with the candidate nac the republican side, i'm saying i'd better provide some air cover because the president is getting a free pass.

>> this is proof that there was no coordination. we always unterberg was the calvary in april? >> double impact of the super pac is a fascinating subject. >> it's like any new development, like tanks or machine guns. >> what worked and didn't work. >> what we discovered, surprise and disappointment was there was some superb super pacs for a long time, but that the impact they had was not from voters, was not what we would expect it to have. and you can analyze this and ask

why this was. the most obvious answer would be because it was not coordinated with the campaign. e-learning campaign one-to-one when you coordinate with the campaign, you roll it out with your prowess in your whole campaign apparatus. they couldn't do that because they were coordinating with the campaign and they were coordinating with each other that much. so they were different times that were coded as they stood alone. they weren't directing one message. so you know, the obama campaign outspent us to the one in advertising and you look at it on paper and to level that out, but the effectiveness of the super pac adds was not only would've thought. >> i remember hearing your announcement and i was reading the transcript of the interview

with the running mate and they said to you, i assume that you are not ruling out the president endorsing gay bearish for the first week of the campaign. is that fair to say? >> it was not built around that. >> i remember you said you know about this because it is the day before we pretaped and said he's going to come out for gay marriage. reappraise aware of the i was going to end up? >> we were pretty clear that was about to happen. >> the first week of the campaign and this is not the message you guys planned kicking off on.

>> yeah, i mean, it was challenging, but it also is true that we all knew having talked to the president that he was going to take that step. so yes, we would've taken it -- >> debasing on a platform fight. >> he was ready to do it and use either going to get a question in the convention issue is coming up. so there's a lot of reasons for him to do it. we didn't plan on the vice president doing that first. but once he did come to force the issue and the truth of the matter is we didn't know quite how the politics would not out, but the way he handled it in the

interview, how he spoke and then you can see to it more than night, but i think it had a galvanizing effect. >> all of a sudden you had people within pre-supporters. >> absolutely. and frankly brought in people part of the process into destiny. so it not only galvanize their folks. frankly, most devoted no behind the scenes of the back-and-forth they just saw this as something they hope the president would do, they agreed with him anyway sinnott wanted them more engaged in the election. >> we put together a timeline to figure out how to have this conversation and everybody said the debates in the convention in the mud of june turn out to be the most important month of the campaign with you guys on the obama side with the immigration

executive order on the tree knocked in the supreme court decision on health care and it was a big financial mark for you guys. so i cannot want to go through all three of those issues. let's start with the health care decision. were you guys planning for it? reappraise assuming it is going to be overturned? it seems like the idea felt like to me as an observer you guys are caught offguard. >> now. >> i think we were caught off guard like everybody better mechanism with which it was sustained. the robert's ruling -- >> we had not contemplated that.

there's not a lot of speculation was going to happen. we had discussions over which would be better politically. not that it mattered. >> how important was that decision? >> it was important. we had a water cooler in our own discussions and i think that, you know, we contemplate what might happen if that galvanize them constituencies. but she couldn't escape the fact this is a signature achievement of the president's first term and had it been reversed, i think you would've had negative effects on us. >> i've never understood the argument. >> so basically your first two years would've been unconstitutional. >> i think i was wrong that it

would have been positive for them because the argument would've taken a lot of energy out of the republican base because to overturn obamacare would be built now because of his overturned and keep it in the electoral factory unit to vote against obama. >> i think i was wrong. >> to think on this. one is a win is a win. it was any time when the president was getting beaten up. >> it's just our turn in the barrel. >> says something positive happening was good. our vote always correlated with people's view of the affordable care act. and after the ruling, the affordable care act favorability when not. so there is kind of a lifting of

the ceiling. it was very real. >> july is very different if the supreme court overturns. >> churned her not to be a bigger fundraising month and even you guys expect it. >> i have heard versions of this. did it change how you're going to do july? did it change the timing a trip overseas? what did the june fund raising boost for you what to do? >> one of the biggest challenges we had was were apt to -- >> the first time you outranked obama. >> one of the challenges we had at that point we had raised $87 million in $2500 chunks during that period, so a lot of the money that we raised this money using to grow the party and the infrastructure, but we

certainly faced a financial disadvantage. and every time i look at what didn't work out for us as a campaign or organization is usually tied back to the power of the company. the campaign ability to their benefit. certainly during this period the reason a lot of money, but not money we could immediately send out the door. >> a very small percentage. i know we had these morning meetings. without this perception out there that were ranking in the money and they would call and say white shoe up up on tv? what's this money we can use is very frustrating. >> very few reporters understood this. >> they would try to do the apples to apples. >> the only money we could spend on television before the convention was primary dollars

raised under the $2500 limit. and that is how the system is currently concerned. >> fundraiser, we need more of that money. >> imagine how difficult it is in july when he won a primary to go and race primary dollars. >> you guys had the luxury near primary were you had these clinton donors who have never given money. and suddenly they could max out to you for the first time. >> the biggest difference is they had someone who is not going to take further financing versus mccain who was a setback if you need the ability to write unlimited money.

>> which are primary site -- there is nobody who had a fundraising list. is that fair to say, not? >> there were some. >> so our theories are in the spirit that i know these guys made the decision to spend money early. that's the power of the comments. so during the period where we face this challenge, we did a few things and so we used the money we are raising and big chunks and high bar indeed be independent expenditure, which that probably occurred to me that timetable up. the other thing going on were super pacs and at that moment would be a lot of super pac

activity. but we needed the super pacs and also during the period, the governor signed off on a $20 million love that allowed us to use primary money to pay back the general money. and so we saw what was going on that we were to try to compete what we were doing, but clearly they have our resources. >> larry, you should chime in. this is a thing to cooked up together, but one of the most significant decisions we made was to bet on the front end of the campaign. i did believe in maybe we can have a discussion about it, but in the month about over, as being much less because there's so much coverage.

the base are so dominance. we have imperative to define that romney before the convention and that it was better -- it was larry's proposition to take money out of september and october and put it into may, june and july. so the other thing that happened in june as he started running ads about that romney. >> in june you guys at negative. >> remove $63 million into december. >> the al gore budget for the entire campaign. >> but we had to say to obama, you're walking into -- you're likely going to be two to three to one in october. it's the right decision. we've got to do this right now. at the same time, we were worried that we dumped a bunch

of money on the ground in june as well. huge voter registration. so i'm memorial day we had to look at the president of the united states and say this is our best guess. >> explained that the immigration executive order meant for hispanic outreach. >> it was so important for us. we knew if we were going to win in florida, colorado, nevada, we do need plans based on the types of voters in the states. we also had a lot of young people that were really galvanized about the dream match the young people traveling all across the country for highlighting what they believed in by the one of the to act. so we have so much going for it to communicate the latinas, to register them in the critical voter registration. it was really hard for us, so

having the executive order really brought not just community to the president a little more, but young people. and it took them from thinking good thoughts about the president taken action directly in support of the president. >> i'm only in july. i'm in trouble here. i'm going to take a couple more minutes of my questions and then i want to mix in some of the students. start lining up at the microphone. when did you have your first meeting? >> april. >> eiji started betting before that? >> now, but i had a list of candidates. >> take a look. >> like these guys, don't like these guys. and then he started whittling down from there. >> i know you're not going to

shell out about the process. >> roberson of the weird questions that may be a potential vp candidate had for you? >> well, we just had a weird moment when i would meet with these guys and ask them really personal questions. i am a woman asking a come as i can talk about paul ryan. i sat down with paul ryan in a hotel room and said tommy bacher dating life in washington d.c. it is a bit of an upward mall mac, but they have traditionally given me a room and i called down and they said were not going to sit crosslegged on the bed and talk about this. [laughter] and so they gave me an enormous

lead, which i found out to be appropriate. it is an interesting way. i didn't have to ask any question he is. >> anyone you met with that you didn't have to have an awkward phase? >> i wanted to make sure i asked other questions. as keenly aware that matt has said he didn't want anybody to have an issue of distractions. so you know, some of the things in the public domain they need to follow up on instead of having them write personal things. >> how many people said can you please put me on the list? i mean, would you have republicans going i don't want to be vetted, but i would love

to be people colin. i'm not much of a small talker. i don't get as much or some other people. >> what was that like? >> they all had opinions. you know, the old vp selection process was expertly run them very much a closed process within the campaign unless the governor invited you into deliberations. and he did do that at the time. but i was amazed at the fact that there wasn't a lot of leaking. i think the individuals who did go through the process respected the confidence in which their discussions with the campaign were held. and i think we ended up with a great result. i know what the selection of

paul ryan, people thought we shot ourselves in the foot because they taken the issue of entitlement reform, specifically medicare that congress has plans for transforming the medicare system and putting that at the top of the issue agenda. but we actually ended up winning seniors. everyone's seniors were one of the policy legacies of the romney campaign is we showed republicans that they can take on tough issues and win. >> none of you thought it would be ryan, right? you are on the public about palme d. >> i had the ryan thing pegged. am i right? >> i didn't actually care. [laughter] >> woodpile nt have made a difference in iowa when you

really can bacher field? whether some people that popped more than others? >> scheuer. you could argue ryan was one of those people. but the reality was ryan actually helped us in wisconsin because wisconsin was the place with five elections before november had a recall. they were just tired. very tired of volunteering, tired of elections and partisanship. so what happened when ryan was paid, and engaged her voters and volunteers in there like i have a second when. i'm now going to do more, but the impact was less anticipated. >> let's go to a question. just ask you, don't make a speech. that's all i ask. the political speeches. just has to questions. >> thank you all for having us. my question is scared towards the romney campaign. during the first presidential debate during the first two candidates, there is a point

that carried over were the momentum sort of changed and i know that jim following the election we talk about the accuracy of polling numbers. i want to know if the romney internal numbers were reflected in the same thing because there is a change in how bromley was carrying himself. >> eric. >> thank you for bringing up the denver campaign. [laughter] >> is going to get there. >> the election on october 2nd . >> yeah, change the structure of the race. we saw that in our polling. people who may have closed their mind to governor romney suddenly reopened at and it made for a much better to prevent september because in september we were dealing with the fallout from the 47%.

so the denver debate was a real quick pivot for us and we did experience a lift in the polling in the states. we were receiving more donations. we've re-energize republicans whose interest in the rate was flagging a little bit. so all in all, i was one of the high points of the campaign. >> did you see the dip in the polls? >> well, we thought in our internal numbers that we got back with a bus to 47%. it came right back to where place. but we never went down. i lead never shunk less than 2.5 points and we're pretty sure that we were okay the entire time. >> dgc and energy issue? >> we did. it was tough for folks that they

were so excited about the debate. i think they felt let down. i think i fell like they were out there working so hard every single day and maybe they were concerned about the president in relation to their hard work. it was tepidly rebounded quickly. >> correct me if i'm wrong about this, one of the unintended or unexpected thing, we were a little complacent in september. september was better than we ever imagined. >> assumption he was complacent. >> i don't think he was complacent, but i do think it's natural to feel like all i've got to do is tie in this debate because we are in a good position and we just have to do well enough. you never want to go into a debate with that. mitt romney new his back was against the law. he had to perform in that debate. had he not performed, the election is over.

the convention spell in our hager. the 47% pic was very, very tough. a lot of independents who lean republican had done away with him and he had to perform in that debate. i do not think we were quite the same position, but the second debate was the reverse. we knew we couldn't have a second patch paper. i think there was actually sent increase in volunteerism because people began to worry that maybe it was actually a risk. >> talk about the polling thing. i know this has been among the great sword of what were -- do you believe you're seeing different numbers in the obama campaign? >> i don't even know if it's a debate anymore, but there is the least of republican pollsters

just was inaccurate for this election. so there is clearly coming out of that first debate, was his greatest eric said and what jim said of the sql two. i think the day before that, i think anybody ever thought he was going to be close again. after that debate, there is a perception because they can gain and governor romney had a good period of time between the first and second debate. >> the longest gap between two debates. >> timeserver for us. >> it's not a betting

mechanism. it's used in direct campaign says something that is easy to get. it is to guide you in a campaign. .2 would be if you get the last nbc wall street: the campaign, 37 voters difference and not pull. not seven points, the seven voters added a sample of 1800 votes. that's a pretty close race when you have seven voters difference. but i think there's a lot of interesting polling studies that can be done. but i think neil did a fantastic job.

it is very depressing talking to them, but we wouldn't have gotten the nomination. >> monday night, the two principal campaign posters that harwood would be monitoring that discussion. go have a full discussion on not. >> subject of a a dependent candidate cannot reflate it was under stairs at a point where either team was heard about gary johnson or ron paul making a serious impact on the election and whether you took any action for that possibility. >> i am going to re-ask your question. but there was a point in the fall of the 11, where you and i would have conversations and i was convinced it is going to be americans of that. you were convinced he was a potential threat. >> if you look at 92 and the

incumbent president, at the time the city said earlier, we are going through a brutal time after the debt limit. they looked into those potential candidates could be and some of them could drop. on the gary johnson thing, we did the close of that. we like that the possessions on pro-marijuana. >> there is a theory -- >> marijuana initiative -- >> in colorado. >> theory, you can speak to this that no matter who we looked at the end of the day, we didn't lose out because people didn't want to be for us, but didn't want to be someone they would default there. so they'd heard he made a about us. so we ultimately concluded an independent would hurt us.

>> we had obama voters. >> ray. they were obama voters and people open to alternatives. but by the third person in their to split this republican for an alternative. >> matt, did you ever think there is going to be, forget larry johnson or ron paul, but just polarized that? >> i don't think i ever really thought about this seriously, but to the questioners question, that are paul was someone we took serious from the beginning of our primary read it to the day of her convention that we were fortunate. you know, dr. paul and his supporters are anybody who underestimates them to sit at their own peril. we were fortunate the government

of a relationship. >> they had debated between the 2008 primary and the 2012 primary. i think they had debated 37 times together. i do want to speak for them, but he is a nice man, so we always took dr. paul seriously in the primary were very happy he stayed. >> you think without that personal relationship he might've been right to? >> i don't know. but it's important to treat people with respect. >> hi, thank you. in hindsight, is there any campaign strategy, including super pacs that might've changed the outcome of the campaign? or are there other factors come including demographics were slow

recovering economy that was just too great for any campaign can't to reverse the outcome? and if the latter, which should be crucial? >> is the one moment. one thing you would like to change if you could rebrand the campaign. [laughter] >> it's a really good question. i've had a lot of sleepless nights thinking about that. so can we just skip that? >> look, i don't think the campaign turns on one moment. you know, on one hand you can say i don't know any campaign that was two to one on television without some sort of

scandal. we could've won the primary earlier, it would have greatly advantaged status. we were close to winning the primary earlier. though history will show that is very difficult to do, for candidates to do. other than not -- >> gives me the one. >> look, you've got to give the obama campaign a great deal of credit for increasing the turnout of women voters, young people, hispanic voters and even african-american voters. i didn't think would be able to surpass what obama was able to

accomplish at the african-american electorate of 2008. but they did come especially in ohio and accounted for their victory there. but ultimately the reason obama won was the central rationale for the romney camp came. when it announced in june of 2011 and the unemployment rivas 10% and in the last month of the campaign of a 7.8%. so their comments regarding the right direction as the economy showed improvement, obama's numbers for now. >> that's the academic cancer. >> david, what is the one thing he would not want to have change? what is that one moment? [inaudible] [laughter] >> would've something that's happened in your favor that that is that it slipped -- what is the one thing you would want to

go to the campaign without? >> let me say i think eric's answer would have been an academic one. job numbers have continued to churn along there. our great fear was the reversal of the numbers would start going backwards. >> like last month. >> i can't count on month. >> i would put us in uncharted waters. so that was a concern. but you know, stewart said they got us to the one and technically that's true. he made the point he doesn't believe the super pacs penniless hopeful, but it was an advantage. there is great value to incumbency, there's no question about it. we looked at president bush's campaign in 2004. he was in a typical situation

similar to ours and he worked it hard to turn it in your choice and make sure there wasn't a referendum connection. we have the advantage of being able to plan. these guys were private and i was enormously advantageous. >> i think that is true, but also, they paid a terribly high price for that nomination. i'm not criticizing because you can't be the president unless he get nominated, but this is a difficult thing and in order to get through those, governor romney took some positions and use language that if you have the primary, he would not have done. i think that made it very hard. that set up very different.

[inaudible] >> what i was going to send david touched david touched on is that what they do have about 10 fewer primaries that day. [inaudible] >> totally. >> eric, something you could not have done without tactically. >> it's certainly been saturday at the nominating process rummy had to go through was a great asset for us. one of the things that was in mentioned, but in addition to that, with the first released in august hispanic media of any campaign in presidential history. we also started on television that went continuously through to the end. both of those tracks were focused on we ultimately came around to governor romney, but

really focused on statements he made in the nominators process. [inaudible] >> let me go to another question. >> you're from the perspective of the romney campaign. they turned out in suburban counties, colorado, florida, virginia indicated romney had been turnout. those reports turned out to be erroneous. how do you change how do you maneuver to get the votes now? >> if you could let me know what election day starts. not, do you want to take that? >> i think that the republican party and chairman brutus i. no

need to catch up on the voter turnout site. and again, this is another example and i hate going back because it is true and i'm not trying to use it as an excuse her, but they have five years to work on their voter turnout plan and our party really needs to focus on investing the resources as soon as possible and figure out the brightest, best new tools we can use on the political side to not only catch up, but to potentially exceed. so whoever gets the nomination in 2016 as a party apparatus behind him is good as an incumbent or as close as possible. irr members specifically election day. i don't mean to knotted your

question on that, but i just don't remember what you're talking about. >> you are counting on these, literally vote it though. when did you know you're going to hit all your targets? when did you know all the members we said we had to hit, we did. >> i was pretty confident and we felt like our plan were buried now. our election day started in september in iowa early, where we had early vote and frankly we didn't have too much of the early vote in two to designate as we and eight as we did in 2012. we stopped about pulling because every single day we would look at exactly that we were able to hypothesize an eye. these are the people we've modeled on the folic those

numbers aren't faced were needing that. >> did you really need that, when they would talk about the early vote numbers. >> with that campaign spin? >> you don't really know it's happening because you don't know it's going to happen on election day. there is a force here that was negative for the romney campaign but it's the first thing you learn the campaigns? its agenda control and we lost control of the agenda. every campaign needs to seem

confident we have reason to be confident. there are predict good qualities of people following those that are confident. the most interesting part of it is predictive qualities of the people following those who are confident. >> 's ewart is quoting -- [laughter] >> these ideas we were overconfident that the history people saying we have a shot, just not particularly great -- >> is going to motivate people.

>> elixir are going to go with the last question here. and then he questions. >> my question is to what extent the social issue should take attention away from what romney really wanted to have. >> you and i were talking about how quickly you guys try to stop would not product and you did it before >> our goal all along from day one was to try to keep the debate in the campaign and which will house. this will house with a sprinkle of spending. we tried our best to keep it focused on those issues because that is where we thought they played midstream. it is related to almost any kind of issue.

they would defuse the situation. sometimes we were not. it was always our goal to do that. >> i want to rat -- this way. i think we now to one side you change in this process, which is fewer debates. are going to plan a whole bunch of debates. [laughter] we didn't talk about the conventions. want to ask it this way on the conventions. the substance of what should i stitcher convention. four years from now, will they be earlier, should they be earlier and should they be shorter? i want everybody to chime in on

that. >> was shrinker convention and i think people will continue to look at that. i think the whole convention system needs to look at. i think the chairs of those committee are doing that. in the united states of america, people should not come together and figure out how to run the election. >> the only reason conventions are late house because people figure out in the federal funding system that you have the same amount of money. >> surtout points are related. the conventions should move earlier but forgot how federal funds being, but i hope and pray we can go to assistance that is some federal funding because the system we have now is everything

minus the corruption that we need some sort of reform of campaign finance we have now. we know history tends to favor republicans. but i think the billion dollars campaigns which will be $2 billion campaigns are abominations that we saw now when you have people campaigning into september is not how the system should work. >> where will conventions be in four years quite >> two things they could budget does. first is the official nominating moment and that's where they got wrapped up and they were at the nominee convention. the second biggest difference, but kind of the electorate. it's the moment where people pay

attention and focus and there's a chance to get across in a significant way who you were. the gore convention was a big moment. i think you could decouple those things to get that kind of technical nominating things back to the end of the primaries so it lets that process start. i kind of like timing and the big moment. when you talk about the rhythm of a presidential campaign, you've got the vice presidential nomination, the convention and the debate. i think to have that big knowledge of the following people pay attention makes a lot more sense than people just aren't ready for that. >> i think there's an awkward part of the campaign between the primary and being in the convention and unless the federal fund name changes,

inevitably will go early. >> you want to shrink the process. >> i went to shrink the awkward. between the nominations. kicking it off in the beginning of the summer in getting voters refocused that the general election is a good thing. >> i think about how we make it more about people in the room. it was grassroots organizing and what we put it in a competitive safer with a ton of voter registration. it's that perspective to be successful and we have to build bigger than just a room for other people to feel engaged. i think in organizing side that it's a lot harder to do when

people are disengaged as you need them to be. >> we actually got a lot out of it. >> more than you ever thought quite >> it came out very, very well. these guys had to do with the same lingering problems throughout the nominating process. they also had problems because they had a four-day convention that became a three-day convention. >> i'm not a meteorologist, but i can tell you that florida, north carolina are both in hurricane end is inevitable that one of them was going to get dinged by a hurricane. >> let me just say this before we wrap up. two things. one is because it's a bugaboo mind and i would be remiss if i don't say it. i hope we find a way to free ourselves, it is in no way that

is important. it's still a pole in the kyoko poll is the ap story of the day. i mean, you know, it is a very, very destructive campaign coverage. >> the other thing before you go with i want to repeat were started before these guys came out which is that touches on the platform with these guys. it's been a pleasure to be with them in the postelection discussions that reminds me about the site that we may have different views come up with sherri great passion for the process of this country. i would be remiss if i type them all out. >> at this point there are cut from the same cause. just two sets of ideology. >> will be going to mention quite >> i regret the post-9/11 they now have the feel of east berlin

with concrete barriers. >> you can go around and see people anymore. >> of course there is a better platform for introducing the candidate. in our case, we used the convention opportunity to talk about the personal side of mitt romney that was missing from the campaign on the sony wanted to nick a big splash that is the perfect base to do that. >> fix the window. he picks for us, obviously democrats will go last. >> are you going to go early? >> i'm subarea to mistake and i agree a lot with what you type the above to be engaged in certain it's an opportunity to take over for two or three nights. i certainly believe they should be shorter than the world we we

live in is more accepting of matching funds. >> how about earlier clinics >> i'm still pretty optimistic we will have a big impact for many, many years and been a part of the presidential campaign process. the kind of dumping on conventions above average in excess? i think they're an important part of the process and i'm confident chairman priapus will do the right thing. >> thanks to everybody here. great honor. klotzbach >> i apologize for everything i did get to. i know there's a ton we didn't get to and i apologize for that. >> with that five weeks to talk about it, so please come back. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> so the book concludes with that in attempting to a job in a chapter called the end of the world. we are talking a lot about media city in europe. but this time there's a talk of the media are common at destroying the earth and what of lincoln's friends absolutely certain it's going to happen. in fact, they can chimes in about 12 years later when they meet again. commissioned general bandow failed. configure fails, write? abuse in washington d.c. as a bureaucrat, he's in illinois and the republican party there. he's not the nominee for senate and pop they never becomes president. at the time he was quite

depressed and went back to his hotel room late and couldn't move. he thought it was the end of his career. as we all know, history is something better in store for mr. lincoln later down the road, but he ends up leaving washington. one term congressman, had his back towards the state of illinois almost as if nothing had ever happened. >> congressman abraham lincoln arrived in washington in 1847 on the reasons for his quick departure. saturday 7:00 p.m. eastern, part of booktv this weekend on c-span 2. >> i'm sure you're more or less familiar with mathematics -- malcolm asked. ..

it meant economies of black communities, the northern ghetto should be run by blacks instead of white owners. he believes in community and patrol of schools so yes he believed in the economy. he is not an integration assess that and he said it's up to us, it's our struggle.